JUDAICA - Wisdom In Torah

ible
tan tradition. The former, writing approximately 400 B.C.E.,
frequently appeals to the “Torah of Moses” and shows familiarity
with every book of the Pentateuch. The Samaritans
a dopted the entire Torah together with the belief in its Mosaic
authorship. Since hostility to the Judeans was already acute
in Ezra’s time and since the Samaritan-Jewish schism could
not have taken place much after this, it follows that the canonization
of the Pentateuch could not then have been a very
recent event.
It may safely be assumed that the work of collection, fixing,
and preservation of the Torah took place in the Babylonian
exile (cf. Ezra 7:14, 25). But our extant sources preserve
no recollection of a formal canonization.
THE CANONIZATION OF THE PROPHETS. The existence of
the Torah Book served as a stimulus to the collection and organization
of the literature of the prophets. A consistent tradition,
repeatedly formulated in rabbinic sources, regards Haggai,
Zechariah, and Malachi as the last of the prophets, the
“divine spirit” having ceased to be active in Israel with their
death (Tosef., Sot. 13:2; Sot. 48b; Yoma 9b; Sanh. 11a). Indeed,
the absence of prophecy was regarded as one of the features
that characterized the Second Temple period as opposed to the
First (TJ, Ta’an. 2:1, 65a; Yoma 21b). Josephus, too, reflects this
same tradition (Apion, 1:39–41). By the middle of the second
century B.C.E., the institution was accepted as having lapsed
(I Macc. 9:27; cf. 4:46; 14:41).
That contemporary prophecy was falling into discredit
soon after the return from the exile is clear from Zechariah
13:2–5, and it is quite likely that the closing verses of the
last prophetic book (Mal. 3:22–24) are actually an epilogue
to the entire collection indirectly expressing recognition of
the cessation of prophecy and the hope of its eschatological
renewal (cf. I Macc. 4:45; 14:41; 1QS 9:11). The cessation of
prophecy could thus be understood ideologically as part of
the spiritual punishment that Israel must endure for its sins
(Jer. 18:18; Ezek. 7:26; Amos 8:11–12; Micah 3:6–7). More important
was the ironic fact that once the writings of the great
prophets of the past became immortalized in written form,
it became increasingly difficult for living prophets to compete
with them.
The tradition declaring the prophetic canon to have been
closed during the era of Persian hegemony, i.e., by 323 B.C.E.,
can be substantiated by several unrelated facts. That Chronicles
belongs to the Ketuvim and neither displaced nor supplemented
Samuel-Kings in the Prophets is best explained on
the assumption that the latter were already sealed at the time
Chronicles was canonized. Similarly, the omission of Daniel
from the Prophets (cf. Sanh. 94a) would be inexplicable if
their canonization occurred in Hellenistic times. The absence
from the Prophets of Greek words or of any reference to the
historical fact of the downfall of the Persian empire and the
transition to Greek rule provides further evidence. Notwithstanding
assertions to the contrary, the tannaitic discussions
about Ezekiel (Ḥag. 13a) have nothing to do with the history
of canonization. The suggestion to relegate the book to the
bibliocrypt (lignoz) was intended solely to remove it from
common use. In fact, only sacred things could be so treated.
Apparently, some time must have elapsed between the canonization
of the Torah and that of the Prophets, since only the
former and not the latter were publicly read at the great assemblies
described in Nehemiah 8–10, while the Samaritans,
who became schismatic in the days of Ezra or soon after, received
the Torah but not the Prophets.
THE CANONIZATION OF THE KETUVIM (HAGIOGRA-
PHA). The third collection of biblical books does not constitute
a unified entity either contextually or ideologically.
Many of the books were certainly written while prophets were
still active and the books were individually canonized quite
early. They were excluded from the prophetic collection because
their inspiration appeared to be human rather than Divine,
or because they did not otherwise conform to the special
ideological content or historical-philosophic framework
of that corpus. This would be true of such works as Psalms
and Proverbs. Other books, like Ezra, Chronicles, and Daniel,
must have been written too late for inclusion in the Prophets.
They were certainly canonical, as was Job too, by the generation
before the destruction of the Second Temple (Yoma 1:6).
At the same time, there is plenty of evidence to show that the
collection of the Ketuvim as a whole, as well as some individual
books within it, was not accepted as being finally closed until
well into the second century C.E. As noted above, the practice
of calling the entire Scriptures the “Torah and Prophets”
presupposes a considerable lapse of time between the canonization
of the second and third parts of the Bible. The fact
that the last division had no fixed name points in the same
direction. Even the finally adopted designation “Ketuvim” is
indeterminate, since it is also used in rabbinic Hebrew in the
two senses of the Scriptures in general and of individual texts
in particular.
Other indications of lateness in Ketuvim are that the Song
of Songs contains two Greek words (3:9, ןוי ֹ רִּ ְפַ
א = palanquin;
4:4, תֹ ויִּ פְלַּ ת = τηλῶπις = far-off), as does Daniel (3:5, 15, הָי ִנֹפְמּוס ּ
= συμφωνία = bagpipe; 3:5, 7, 10, 15, ןירֵ ִתְנַ
סְּ פ = Ψαλτήριον),
סרתיק = κίθαρις which even refers to the break-up of the Greek
empire (by name 18:21; 11:2) and which most likely did not
achieve its final form before approximately 167 B.C.E. (For the
influence of Persian and Greek on the Book of Ecclesiastes see
*Ecclesiastes.) Ben Sira (c. 180 B.C.E.), who shows familiarity
with all other biblical books, does not mention Daniel or Esther.
The latter book, in fact, seems not to have been accepted
among the sectarians of Qumran; at least no fragments of it
have yet turned up among the scrolls from the Judean Desert.
Indeed, that there was once a certain reserve in respect of
the sanctity of the Book of Esther is apparent from rabbinic
discussion (Meg. 7a; cf. Sanh. 100a).
The ambivalent attitude on the part of the rabbis to the
578 ENCYCLOPAEDIA JUDAICA, Second Edition, Volume 3